The problem of land ownership at present cannot be
resolved without understanding the land ownership structure of the past. The
past plays an important role in shaping our perceptions and ordering our
priorites. Naturally, the solutions we find for the contemporary crisis are
affected by our past. Hence, it is important to see how our ancestors understood
land ownership.
There is a general consensus among experts that
the question of land ownership came into existence in the post-vedic era because
during the Rig vedic era, the Aryans were pastorals and cattle was the main
index of wealth. Land ownership was not prevalent at that time. In the post-vedic
era, due to use of iron implements in agriculture, people started staying in one
place. We find reference to land ownership in the post-vedic book Aitareya
Brahman in which it is written that when Vishwakarman Bhuvan donated land to the
purohits for performing yagna, Prithvi protested. This suggests that it was not
possible to donate land without the consent of the community. In other words,
land ownership was based on community and there was no concept of individual
ownership of land.
According to dharmashastra expert of Mahajanpad
period, Gautam, any property that was the means of livelihood, could not be
divided, and this, most probably, also included land. With the development of
villages inhabitated by a wide spectrum of communities and professionals, the
question of ownership of land that was not attached to an identifiable property
became equally perplexing. The fact that there was common ownership of land can
also be verified in Rishi Jaimini’s Mimamsa sutras. Under this arrangement, no
king can give away all the land of his kingdom since the earth belongs to all.
During the Maurya era, political philosopher
Kautilya was in favour of the king’s control over all agricultural land, but he
did not sponsor the notion that the king should be the owner of all the land.
Possibly, Manu was the first person to have talked about king’s first right of
ownership of the land. But this does not necessarily mean that he is the
absolute owner of all the land. According to Manu, the king owns half of all
that comes out of mines, because he is lord of the earth and protects it. The
concept of king’s ownership over all land was first propounded in the post-Gupta
period by Sage Katyayan who said that the king is the owner of all land and
therefore, he has right to one fourth of all the products of land. At the same
time, he also accepts that one who lives on land, should be the man acknowledged
as its owner. A similar sentiment is expressed in Narad Smriti. Contrary to
this, the Narsingh Puran clearly says that the land belongs to the king and not
to the farmer. One can say that Narsingh Puran is the first text which gives the
king the total ownership of land.
According to Narad, if a family has been enjoying
the fruits of a land for three generations, then they have the legal rights over
it. However, the will of the king can facilitate transfer of the land to another
farming household. This implies that the king’s right can infringe upon the
individual’s right. Chinese travellers Fahien who came to India during the Gupta
period and Hiuen Tsang who came during King Harshvardhan’s rule noted that the
land belonged to the king. Writing in the post-Gupta period, Brihaspati noted
that during the division of ancestral property, shudra putras (lower caste sons)
of upper caste men would not get a share. Besides, the division of grazing land
was also an accepted practice. So, division of land and the continuation of
accepting it as private property started during the Gupta period. The rules for
sale of land were first laid down by Brihaspati. Kautilya talks only about the
sale of house and the land attached to it, but he does not talk about sale of
land per se. After Brihaspati, it was Katyayan who made rules in this regard.
According to him, land which is taxed could be sold to pay the tax. According to
Brihaspati, during sale of land one must mention the number of wells, trees,
water sources, fields, ripe crops, fruits, ponds, tax houses etc. Here, one may
conjecture that Brihaspati was delienating terms of selling an entire village.
According to Gautam and Manu, if a plot of land
stays under possession of a person for 10 years or more, then it becomes his
property. Yagyavallabh extended this period to 20 years, but none of them talked
about land in this context. Vishnu, Narad, Brihaspati and Katyayan increased
this period to three generations that is 60 years and also included land under
this. With the 11th century Mitakshara law, the time period was increased to a
100 years and in the 13th century under Smriti Chandrika it was increased to 105
years. This makes it clear that the concept of individual ownership of land
could not be challenged any further. So, we see that during the beginning of the
ancient period, there was community ownership of land; by the end of the ancient
period the stress was on the king’s and individual ownership of land, even
though it appears that these two rights are in conflict with one another. Due to
king’s ownership of land, the king could grant land to temple priests, powerful
nobles and employees in return of services rendered to the king. And under the
concept of individual ownership of land, the person who received a grant of land
from the king could hand it over to farmers on patta. From the above it appears
that since the early middle ages, there were more than one claimant for land and
each had legal backing for it. A similar situation was prevalent in feudal
Europe at that time, though there were some fundamental differences.
During 1200s, when the Muslim sultanates were
established in north India, there was a change in the pattern of land ownership.
The land under the Sultanate was divided into three parts. The first was
‘khalsa’ land which was directly under the Centre, the second was ‘Ekta’ which
was given to the officers in lieu of their salary. The officers were expected to
take their salary from the revenue generated from the land and return the
remaining to the Centre. The third type of land was donated to scholars and
priests. Since land was in plenty, the question of ownership was relatively less
intimidating. Khoot, Mukaddam and Choudhary were the intermediate land owning
class. Of them the Khoots had the status of zamindars, while Mukaddam and
Choudhary were heads of villages and were prosperous farmers. This intermediate
land owning class used to collect tax from the farmers and deposit it in the
Central treasury. But, during the era of Allauddin Khilji, the powers of the
intermediate class were taken away and the State’s employees were given the task
of collecting tax directly from the farmers. In the rural society, the land
owning farmers and the landless farmers lived side by side, but only the land
owning farmer paid the taxes.
During the rule of Sher Shah Suri, the ‘Jabt’
system was introduced and the tax was based on the size of the holding. All
cultivable land was measured and each farmer was given a title deed in which the
tax to be levied was also mentioned. The direct relation with the state saved
the farmer from exploitation by the zamindars and other intermediaries. During
the Mughal period, the situation remained unclear, as had been during the
Sultanate regime. It is possible that the state and other sections had right
over the same plot of land, but there was no concept of total ownership of land.
During this period the influence of the zamindars increased and they amassed
enormous social clout. Akbar divided the land under him into ‘Khalsa’ and ‘Jagir’.
The Mansabdars, whose salaries were derived from the revenue of the land given
to them, were known as the Jagirdars. Along with them there was a large class of
Zamindars, who, in turn, were divided into three categories. The farmers were of
two types – the ‘Khudkashta’ and ‘Pahikashta’. The former were farmers who
tilled their own lands and the latter were landless peasants who tilled other
people’s land. One may deduce that the settlement pattern during the Mughal
period led to the rise of several claimants to the same plot of land.
The question of land ownership once again came to
the forefront during the British. It was in Bengal that the British rule first
tried to solve this problem. In the beginning, all the land was considered to be
that of the ruler and revenue collection was based on contract. The highest
bidder of a tract of land was given the right to collect the revenue. After
experimenting with several models of revenue collection, the then governor
general Cornwallis accepted that the Zamindars had the right of ownership of
land and this ownership passed from father to son. This was done so that if a
zamindar failed to give the promised revenue on time, his land could be
auctioned. When lands of the zamindars were auctioned, it was the traders who
usually purchased them. During the British period, industries had declined and
for the traders there was no safer investment than land. However, the zamindars
lived in the cities and the problem associated with absentee landlordism started
cropping up.
The main aim of the absentee zamindars was to
extract the maximum amount of revenue from the farmers and little from the
tillers. Gradually, the new generation of the zamindars also started living in
the cities and their motive too was to extract the maximum amount of revenue
from the farmers.
Apart from Bengal, the ownership of land was given
directly to the farmers in the rest of the country upon the payment of fixed
revenue called malguzari. If they failed, their land had to be mortgaged or sold
to pay the
dues. In south India, the farmers used to deposit the land revenue directly to
the government, while in Punjab and other parts of north India, the Mahal, who
represented the farmers, used to collect revenue. Over a period of time, the
British increased their demand for land revenue and to ensure that it could be
collected, they made land a saleable property. So whenever a zamindar, farmer or
Mahal failed to deposit the revenue on the given date, his ownership of the land
was auctioned and the land revenue was collected. Prior to the British rule,
such auctions of confiscated land was rare. In most of the cases the land on
which people could build houses or land that was to be donated for religious
purposes were bought and sold. Even during the British period, 40 per cent of
the area came under the princely states and the pattern of ownership on this
land was based on concepts that varied from the medieval to modern.
After independence, the question of land was
discussed in detail at the Constituent Assembly and Parliament. Since India had
decided to become a democratic republic, it was decided that a land distribution
should be more just and equitable. Egged on by the Centre, the State governments
passed the Zamindari abolition act and other similar acts to bring about some
regularity in the ownership pattern of land.
After zamindari was abolished, the zamindars were
given compensation of their land and it was distributed among those who had been
tilling them. In most of the States, the zamindari system was abolished by 1956.
But the absence of land records made it difficult to implement laws abolishing
zamindari. According to one study, the area under kashtakars (share croppers)
had come down from 42 per cent in 1950-51 to around 20-25 per cent in the
beginning of the 60s. This did not mean that the share croppers had become
owners, rather it meant that the landowners had evicted them. On the other hand,
the compensation given to the zamindars was often inadequate and varied from
State to State.
There were several hurdles to the abolition of
zamindari system. In Uttar Pradesh, the zamindars were allowed to keep land for
their personal cultivation, but there was no limit to this holding, as a result
of which the absentee landlord could save their land from acquisition. However,
some of the bigger landlords did cultivate land on their own and invested in the
land, which were included in goals of land development. The land owners also
tried to block the implementation of the Act by misusing the path of judicial
remedy. However, by 1960, zamindari was abolished in most parts of the country
except in some parts of Bihar. While on the one hand, the big landowners were
the main losers; on the other hand, the sharecroppers who had been working on
the same land for years gained the ownership of the land. According to a rough
estimate, due to abolition of zamindari system, two crore sharecroppers got
land.
Efforts were made to improve the sharecropping
system and there were three main ingredients to it. The time period for
registering as sharecropper was kept at six years. Moreover, the land revenue
was reduced from one fourth to one sixth of the production. However, to get
ownership rights, the sharecropper had to deposit a lump sum land revenue. For
example, in Andhra Pradesh it was only after the payment of eight years’ land
revene that a farmer could acquire rights over the land he tilled. Despite these
Acts, the right of the absentee landowners to start farming and the loosely
framed concept of personal cultivable land meant that many sharecroppers were
evicted from the land. Since the agreements between the farmers and the
landlords were rarely documented, the legality of sharecropper’s claim could not
be verified. But even then a large section did benefit from it. To improve the
lot of sharecropper, the Operation Barga was launched in Bengal by the Left
government in 1978 and by 1990, over 14 lakh Bargadars were registered. The main
aim of Operation Barga was to provide security to the sharecropper on the land
he tilled. He could no more be evicted on the land owner’s whim and it also
ensured that his rights were passed on to his successor. The division ratio
between the sharecropper and land owner was kept at 75:25 and if the land owner
invested in the seeds and fertiliser, then it was a 50:50 share between the two.
Training camps were set up during Operation Barga where officials from more than
10 departments interacted with 30 or more agriculture labourers and
sharecroppers to devise strategies on implementing Operation Barga in that area.
At first Operation Barga was hugely successful, but later it could not sustain
its momentum because the holdings of landowners were no bigger than that of most
sharecroppers of the area and because many started cultivating their own lands.
Under the Hadbandi Act, no family could keep
cultivable land above a certain limit. In 1946, the Akhil Bharatiya Kisan Sabha
had kept 25 acres as the maximum limit of cultivable land a family could keep.
However, there
was a great delay in framing the rules under this Act and different State
governments fixed different limits as a result of which the impact of this act
lost its intensity. In a country like India where the average holding of 70 per
cent of the farmers was less than 5 acres, the threshold limit of land holding
fixed by the State was very high. In Andhra Pradesh it was fixed between 27-132
acres depending on the type of land. In most states the threshold limit was
fixed on an individual basis and there was provision to increase it. Even with
its limitations, this act was an important milestone in the programme of land
reforms. It greatly succeeded in ending the land market and concentration of
land.
The landowners often took advantage of the
loopholes in the land reform laws. At some places they managed to evict their
sharecroppers and to save their land from the Hadbandi Act. Moreover, they
started keeping land in fictitious names. It was then that Vinoba Bhave, a close
associate of Mahatma Gandhi, started the Bhoodan movement. The movement appealed
to the individual landowner to donate land to the landless.
The main thrust of the Bhoodan movement was to
address the conscience of the landowner and get him to donate one sixth of his
land. The land thus procured was distributed among the landless. By March 1956,
the movement started losing momentum after getting more than 40 lakh acres of
land. It was found that most of the donated land was either barren or locked in
litigation. Efficient distribution, too could not be ensured. By the end of
1955, the Gramdan movement was also launched. Once again the inspiration of this
movement was Gandhiji who believed that all land belonged to God. Under Gramdan,
all the villagers had joint ownership over the land in the village. This
movement started in Orissa. Even though it held a lot of promise, by the 60s the
Bhoodan and Gramdan movement lost their momentum. But by these movements an
effort was made at land reforms which not only complemented land reform
legislations but also encouraged the farmers to enter politics and increased the
number of farmer producers’ cooperatives among other things.
So, we find that the pattern of land ownership
changed from community ownership in ancient India to individual and then to
king’s ruler’s ownership.
In the middle ages the king\sultan and zamindar\farmer
had concurrent rights over the same plot of land. In the British era, due to
excessive land revenue extracted from farmers, land became a saleable product.
In independent India, the laws of land ownership were framed to ensure that each
farmer had a minimum amount of land with him, but this target could not be
reached. Although, some of the disparities in land ownership were addressed over
the years by movements such as Bhoodan and Gramdan, there are still many with
large tracts of land and many more who are landless while it remains to see how
dexterously the government handles social inequality arising out of uneven
distribution of land. An empathetic approach is sought from the big land-owners.

(The writer is an engineer and has published four books on history)
Contact: Mobile - 09313541719
email: rajeshjoshu@gmail.com